1. Groups that are involved in this issue are mostly made up of hunters and the California government. Pretty much there are two groups, those who support the use of lead in hunting and fishing and those who oppose.
2. Some of the major speakers in this issue would have to be Game and Fish, and several hunter associations that so not support the ban.
3. Game and Fish has a more political power since it is a government agency that deals with the management of different aspects of our environment, while the hunters have a more of a social and cultural power since it is made up of citizens who are expressing their rights to use this type of ammunition.
4. Game and Fish values all natural resources and its well being, while hunters value their right to hunt and use guns.
5. I believe that there is, since Game and Fish is a government agency then I think that it has more power than any hunter association.
6. There isn't really any acknowledgment in common, they both have their separate belief on whether or not lead is really as bad as it is said to be.
7. I don't believe that there is no common ground between these two groups, you either believe that lead has negative effects on the environment or you believe that these effects are exaggerated and not as dire are others want you to believe that they are.
8. They do listen to each other, I have come across some sources that are replies to other sources who voiced opposing opinions. This is the case with many scholarly journals as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment